Worst President of US

I think the "problem", if there is one, is with having the Ten Commandments in the schools. As the Supreme Court once said, in a case involving zoning, there can be a "right thing in a wrong place', like a pig in the parlor instead of the barnyard. I think Meagain is saying bringing the Ten Commandments into the schools seems to violate the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution (First Amendment). You were wondering about that document. It Says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." Court decisions interpreting it have focused mainly on prayer in schools and funding of various activities at parochial schools. The Supreme Court has okayed public creches so long as there are enough plastic reindeer and other secular bricbrac to dilute the religious character. The legislature in my state of Oklahoma has tried for years to put them on state property, such as the lawn of the Capitol building. That attempt was most recently thwarted by a threat by a Satanist group to put up a statue of the Evil One with a lap kids could sit on. I suggested to my representative that they put a copy on the wall of every state legislator and have them check off each week which ones they keep, or don't keep.

In 1971, the Supreme Court, in the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman, gave us a three-pronged test for determining when the line is crossed: (1) purpose: there must be a secular purpose; (2) effect: the main effect must neither advance nor impede religion; and (3) entanglement: there must be no "excessive government entanglement" with religion. Obviously, that vague language has kept lawyers employed ever sine figuring out the proper limits. BUT WAIT! Newsflash:The Court scrapped the Lemon test three years ago in the 2022 case of Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. The Court held that the government may not prevent a person, even a coach, from post game praying personally on the football field, because it would limit his rights under the free exercise clause and the First Amendment. In Groff v.De Joy the following year, the Court made it official. Lemon is dead! What the current standard is anybody's guess.

In 2010, Oklahoma passed a law allowing the Old and New Testaments be taught in public schools as an elective in order to (secular purpose) give “students knowledge of biblical content, characters, poetry, and narratives that are prerequisites to understanding contemporary society and culture, including literature, art, music, mores, oratory, and public policy.” Also the school must "maintain religious neutrality, accommodate other religious perspectives of students and not promote or disfavor a particular religion or lack of religious belief" and mustn't run afoul of state and federal constitution. Recently, the Republican Superintendent of Schools has directed that the State's public schools must incorporate the Bible "as an instructional resource", and include it in social studies classes. His edict has already encountered court challenge, because the only Bible meeting his criteria is one promoted by our new U.S. President (So convenient, since it also includes the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.) We'll see how that flies! It's being challenged in court for violating the establishment clause and exceeding the Superintendent's authority under state law.

 

I'm no lawyer, but Id say, to be on the safe side, you might include a pumpkin, an inflatable Bert and Ernie, a photo of Taylor Swift, and maybe either a menorah, a statue of the Buddah (or lotus or something), or one of Krsihna, a yin-yang symbol, or a banner with a crescent and star and the words اللّٰهُ أَكْبَر (allahu akbar ) on it, and maybe an inverted pentagram. That should do it! In McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union (2005), the Court held that adding some secular symbols to a display of the Ten Commandments display in a couple of Kentucky county courthouses could not overcome a clear legislative intent to support a religious message. In Van Orden v. Perry, decided the same year, the Court okayed a monument to the Ten Commandments on the grounds of a Texas courthouse because it was one display among many. Both were 5-4 decisions, and the swing vote, Justice Breyer, is no longer on the court.

That would be ideal. But in a crowded curriculum which often doesn't include civics anymore, probably too much to ask.

Probably not. But first I must apologize. I forgot to mention that the Court scrapped the Lemon test in the cases of Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022) and Groff v.De Joy (2023).What the current test is, if any, is anybody's guess. But whatever it is, my hunch is the Satanic Bible won't make it. Currently, SCOTUS seems to be in an even more accommodationist mood where establishment clause issues are concerned--probably meaning "twisting the law (even more) to allow the Christian religion to be taught in public schools".

As for the Satanic Bible, I doubt that any school district in the country, even on the coasts, would include it in the curriculum, but I wouldn't rule it out in the school library. My son brought home a copy of it from middle school library, and I found myself having to explain what having carnal knowledge of a swan involvd! These @#$% schools! You can't trust them!. I'm not sure its better than learning sex on the streets!

 

...

 

I wasn't "wondering about that document" I simply asked MeAgain which of the Ten Commandments he had an issue with. Very simple.

 

Why are you combining two separate quotes, by two different people on two total separate topics?

 

...

 

well it seems as if it a complicated matter as to the commandments in schools

What the Supreme Court has said about displaying the Ten Commandments in schools

 

I asked MoonGodess a question, which she hasten yet answered.
MeAgain chimed in. I suppose he thinks MoonGodess in incapable of speaking for herself, and your response of "right thing, wrong place" answers nothing, but to imply you have no problem with the Ten Commandments. Luckly my ignorance doesn't include simple reading/ responding.

 

...

 

What question did you ask me that I did not answer?

This is a statement, not a question but if you are worried about where your tax dollars go you should be concerned about every "drop in the bucket". My FIL used to say, "Pennies make nickels, nickels make dimes, dimes make dollars, it all adds up."

This is the only question I see and it was not directed at me.
But if you want to talk about unanswered questions, there were quite a few of mine that you skipped. Would you care to address them?

 

Which policies do you support specifically?
To name a few, but by no means all--Declaration of Emergence on the Southern border, Designating cartels as terrorists, Ending birthright citizenship, Pausing Foreign Aid, Establishing DOGE, Defining sex as based on biology. To name a few.

Is that where you want your taxes to go?

I'm unfamiliar with the extent of repairs needed to the house, but I suspect its more than a coat of paint. Without knowing this, it's imposable to answer the question. But I will say spending $137K on a house is somewhere below 1000 of the top items I'm concerned about.

do you make more than $360,000 a year?

Thats a highly personal question, but I will answer it. No. I never listed Trumps Tax Breaks as a reason I voted for him. I think the benefits of Trump vastly out

 

So...what I'm hearing is that it is a lost cause to try and talk to you. Thank you for your honesty, I will reserve my time and energy for more important things.

 

"Joy is an act of resistance." - Audre Lorde
I'm finding Joy in music right now.

 

I find this sad and interesting as well, which of the policies above do you find bad/wrong/incorrect ?

let me add I totally agree with designating cartels as terrorists, pausing foreign aid UNTIL it is evaluated and deemed in a democratic interest ( IE: not against the interests of the USA) and better management of the southern border.
if you disagree with the above, can you articulate why?

 

Why sad? I am so sick of all this bullshit and I value my peace over arguing with someone. You asked for me to articulate why I disagree, here is my explanation, if you don't agree with it, I don't really care.

I prefer to deal with actual definitions of words. A drug cartel is a criminal organization composed of independent drug lords who collude with each other in order to improve their profits and dominate the illegal drug trade. Drug cartels form with the purpose of controlling the supply of the illegal drug trade and maintaining prices at a high level. Terrorist- a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

If you want to create legislation to deal specifically with drug cartels, by all means do it but technically they are not terrorists. I think it is dangerous to be throwing that word around, trump would like everyone that speaks out against him labeled as a terrorist.

"pausing foreign aid UNTIL it is evaluated and deemed in a democratic interest ( IE: not against the interests of the USA)" -
While I do agree that we should be reevaluating where the money goes and why, it is a congressional power not a presidential power. The president should be held to the letter of the law, you were very clear how you think the laws must be followed at all costs, right? The president (and before anyone says well what about Obama or Biden, I do mean ALL presidents) should know and abide by the constitution that they swore to uphold.

"better management of the southern border"-
I think we need serious and immediate immigration reform, it is far too expensive and challenging for people to come here legally and like it or not we depend on these people that you all are so keen on kicking out. If you make it easier to come here legally, then the ones that just want to come for work and a better life for their families will be doing it legally and the criminal element that you want to keep out ...well they will keep doing what they want and those people should be caught and deported but at least you won't be punishing the innocent people who's only crime was crossing an imaginary line without the proper paperwork.

When I saw this in the other thread, I had originally written a long post about the things I do that are not in "online forums", how there are more than just those two options you gave and warning about the dangers of apathy but then I remembered I don't need to defend myself to you or anyone else here. I wasn't going to bother posting anymore but then my name got mentioned, erroneously stating that I had not answered their question, I corrected that error and reminded them that they hadn't answered several of mine. I am not becoming apathetic, I am withdrawing to preserve my own values and sanity. Some people just regurgitate talking points that have been presented to them instead of actually thinking about how all those things effect people, including themselves, trying to reason with them is like beating my head against a wall and I was finding the need to delete some rather scathing remarks because they served no purpose other than to vent my agitation. That's not the kind of person I want to be. So, think whatever you want about that....I guess I am beginning to become apathetic after all. If anyone wants to have a nice discussion about gardening, meditation, books, music, etc... I might be hanging out in those other forums, lol.